I find the concept of avoiding unilateralism [to be] a deceptive ruse often used by those who have no real desire to see Saddam ousted.

If a carjacker steals my car - I am not opposed to a single policeman unilaterally apprehending the criminal or a whole precinct tackling him. The crux of the matter is that he is apprehended.



Well OK, but consider this:

Your example is of a [1] duly-constituted law enforcer responding to a [2] crime [3] within his own jurisdiction. None of those necessary preconditions obtain - yet - in the case of US v Iraq. That is to say:

[1] With the recent (and irrelevant to this discussion) exception of the EU, the United Nations constitutes the sole legislative body on the planet with a jurisdiction larger than any single nation. As such, it is the only authority with power to duly constitute enforcers of its laws. To date, the necessary constitution of the US alone, or in coalition with any other nation, as such an enforcement agency in this case has not been affected.

Our president and his senior staff have made it clear that, in the absence of proper international authorization, the US will act alone (with, at last report, the UK as a possible ally). I submit that such an action is not in keeping with The Rule of Law, however expedient and/or necessary it may be perceived to be in certain quarters.

There have always been "rogue states". There has also always been "national sovereignty". Both concepts are quite often differently interpreted; I suggest that at least one attribute of the average "rogue state" is its disregard for national sovereignty. If the Unites States is collectively trying to amend for a couple centuries of inconsistent international behavior regarding rogue states - including, quite often, being one - by taking upon itself the role of "enforcer of human rights", it - that is, we - have not said so explicitly.

[2] I will stipulate that the US government may have sufficient reasons of "national security" for keeping secret from its people, and their elected representatives, the conclusory evidence of a "crime" sufficient to commit the lives of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen/women and billions of dollars in materiel to the apprehension of the perpetrator. In the process of "coalition building", however, I would speculate that the US would share sufficiently damning evidence with their international counterparts cleared to handle "state secrets". My personal incredulity that any such evidence exists is based upon the fact that no other national leader except Tony Blair has been convinced.

[3] With reference to [2], no evidence has yet been presented to substantiate the charge that the nation of Iraq has violated American or international law on American soil. Until such evidence is presented, or until the US has been authorized by the UN, the actions of Iraq within its own borders (vis a vis the Kurds, for instance) is outside American jurisdiction.

------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally believe that sufficient justification has existed in the past, may exist in the present, and is likely to exist in the future, for the technical violation of national sovereignty for the purpose of enforcing human rights. I am not opposed in principle to the concept of a standing international military organization constituted for this purpose, nor to a case-by-case authorization of any one nation's or coalition's armies with the honorable duty. I am resolutely opposed to any one nation or coalition acting as vigilante, which unfortunately remains the stated policy of the government of my country, which I once believed abhorred vigilantism.

Mary Anne made an excellent point in this thread about the consistent mistaken comparison of World War II's preconditons to the current issue. Though I am not an expert, I am finding the most applicable historical analogy to be the Spanish-American War.